 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I changed the wording avert "but" What do you think?
I see that the word but is either/or.
It is either not-for-profit or it is for unlimited profit?
Either/or?
I think it is the point that is worth pointing out, so which is it?
Is it not-for-profit in a strict sense that there is no transfer of power at all, ever, in any way, whereby the power is never allowed to flow inequitably in any way ever?
I think in terms of scales.
On one end of the scale is when, and where, everyone has their own personal Central Bank such as the actual proof offered by Josiah Warren in Equitable Commerce.
On the other end of the scale is something like a Federal Reserve Fraud combined with an Internal Revenue Service Extortion Racket whereby everything that can be stolen from those who produce things worth stealing is stolen and the thieves use the loot to steal more.
The sentence can certainly be improved to explain the fact that there is a scale and on one end of the scale is the concept of not-for-profit and on the other end of the scale is unlimited profit.
I can try to make a competitive version.
But according to statistical calculation, the Bank will always net a profit to cover costs up to the government limit - again we are in that sense not-for-profit, but not in the sense of unlimited profit.
I see the following:
But according to statistical calculation, the Bank will always net a profit to cover costs. That is a guarantee. Above and beyond the covering of costs there is a margin of profits that is likely, almost assured, so long as the Bank remains competitive and efficiently run. There is a point at which the franchise can reach a condition called usury, because of the government label, which works like a monopoly, so the idea is to cut off the profit margin at a reasonable limit.
or
But according to statistical calculation, the Bank will always net a profit to cover costs up to the government limit. We are in that sense not-for-profit, but (the franchise) is not allowed to consume all the competitors by an initial capacity to expend reserves such as the practice of dumping, which is exemplified by the High School Drug Dealer giving away the product, so as to then create a market, and corner that market, so as then to have no competition, and then jack up the price to that which the market will bear. That was the problem with the single Legal Money Supplier in the past. Now there are safeguards in place to alert the people as to the dangers of allowing the criminals to take over the power of government.